Replies

"Anyway, I wish the opponents of the dogma would read the relevant part of the Summa. It would save time.

Hey great, but the link which you provided is 404 non-functional.

I would wish that most all of the "defenders" (yourself, and seemingly one or few others excepted?) would also read and understand --- and perhaps accept that proponents of the dogma often do not appear to know all that well, what they are talking about, either.

No, not when alleged eucharistic 'miracles' are trotted out in support of corporeal sense of "Presence" of His actual flesh and blood body, and when that type of thing (eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, for example) is challenged, a typical sort of response be that the miracle was sent/performed by God in order to "build faith in" ...wait for it...transubstantiation...which among many Roman Catholics (but not all) apparently includes internalized conceptualization that real and actual flesh and blood (of Christ) near(?) exactly as our own human flesh and blood is (he WAS fully man, while also fully God, thus the flesh "human" as our own) be truly present under the mere outwards appearances of the bread and wine, etc.

It is the doctrine itself, and wordings employed in describing it which unavoidably bring inclusion of an "incarnational" sense of corporeality be part of what is being said that RC priests (alone?) "reach up into heaven" to bring Christ to earth, etc., that is among key central aspects of what is perceived to be RCC eucharistic theology --- which is opposed by a great many.

It is scarcely the fault of the Protestants who reject the doctrines and dogma in regard to transubstantiation, as the RCC describes that to be, for there are many treatments and descriptions, which when examined beyond mere rote repetition of wordings, as for the ramifications of those wordings, can be shown to carry within those descriptions inherent contradictions within the descriptions themselves, with some considerations also being contrary to Scripture, and significantly large portions of early Church tradition.

Thousands and thousands of times over on the pages of FR there have been [Roman] Catholics bashing 'Protestants' over the head with the issue while arguing for seeming strict literal corporeal flesh "presence".

You can't criticize the teaching coherently because — if you're going to call substance “literal figurative” — you aren't talking about the dogma but about a misunderstanding of it.

Lack of coherence? Well sir, you may have attempted to show just what -- and just how 'what', was being misunderstood, yet I've yet to see that be coherently done.

Where more precisely, does this lack of coherence originate? Don't look at me, jelly-bean, I was not the one who invented this massive mess.

What makes it so bloody (pun intended) difficult to talk about, is that as I've mentioned -- most "defenders", either don't know what they are talking about, else are so poor at describing what is going on they add to confusion concerning the subject.

There is also the aspect (and this is significant) wherein among Catholics, different individuals apparently internalize (thus inwardly understand, think, or else assume) in differing ways the words of the very same, near-identically parroted argument, and many think they are (of course) entirely correct, and then when hearing similar wordings from other Roman Catholics, assume that most everyone is on the same page, when that is not necessarily so, due to how the internalization of metaphysical/philosophical terminology is applied to that which is of Spirit, but at the same time is attempted to be explained as also highly specialized form of(?) "incarnational" secret decoder ring(?) type of thinking.

At this point I can just hear 'em (my many critics) thinking smugly to themselves, that I can't know it, if I've not experienced "it" ---meaning the profound way that the Lord can be and minister to one's deepest inwards portions of soul and being, when partaking of communion. But they (my critics, that vast herd) are wrong, I do know, or else I would not be able to speak of this...

As for what comes across as 'Catholic belief' when listening to [Roman] Catholics talk about eucharist, it seems to me that many hold to what could be referred to as more of a spiritualized view than they'd care to openly admit, extended even to what is otherwise spoken of his "actual" flesh and blood presence. Others, from listening to them, seem to hold more centrally corporeal presence type of thinking, and then yet for still more variety of other internalized opinions ---- the apparent mainstream --- combine the two --- leaving things to be something of a having things both ways, and thus often resulting in arguing things first one way, then another, depending upon which 'Catholic' is doing the talking at any one time.

But we are told --- "you don't understand". On the contrary, I myself understand it well enough. How much must a person know, anyway? I found it much easier to find (the spirit of) the Lord when I hadn't been subjected to The Difficulties with Romanism, as Faber put it. This stuff gives me a headache, more like a heartache disturbance, in my spirit. Life was funner when I was more dummer.

I will add here also, that the term "literal figurative" likely as not may have come to this forum by my own clattering keyboard, in an effort to encapsulate and convey sense of a "spiritual" rather than carnal, corporeal eating/partaking of Holy Communion, while also including consideration for the physical bread and wine, as for what those literally are in their own substance.

Though it may go without saying;
I do maintain that the bread and wine, on most fundamentally literal, physical levels, retains in that purely physical sense, their original properties of "substance", yet upon consecration become the figure(s) and essence of the spiritual realities which those substances then represent. How's that for paraphrasing Augustine, eh fr.?

I perceive that the way I just made effort to describe this subject was the way much of the early Church viewed εὐχαριστία (eucharista), (if they contemplated upon it much at all). There seems to be (more than?) a few Roman Catholics who could for the most part, agree with myself that its similar to their own view also. Yet, that very sort of postulation/idea has in past eras been declared by the Latin Church to be "heresy", as possibly exampled in positional controversy between Ratramnus and Paschasius Radbertus in the 9th century, then echoed a couple of centuries or so later between Berengar and Lanfranc.

Radbertus evidently having argued for a physicality/corporeal presence in combination with the previously, more widely prevailing spiritual view, much as to how Augustine, and many other early Church luminaries, like Chrysostom, can be reasonably enough seen to have held those views towards the nature and 'substance' of the bread and wine, after consecration. The 'substance' of the bread and wine itself -- not suffering annihilation, although terminology like "annihilation" was not used in ancient times in regards to eucharist, to say what does not occur to the bread and wine.

Did this conversation begin on note of individuals' (and even entire church's) beliefs being misstated by those whom held differing views, or what? Well, guess what?

That apparently happened to Berengar, and possibly Ratranmus before him. And now, it does seem to me (no offense intended towards yourself, personally) that Catholics will, at times, either misrepresent official RCC dogmas when the wording of those is criticized (at those junctures inconvenient, & difficult to defend) often enough for reason of what the interplay between collections of statements unavoidably result in, in their ramifications, once everything is examined for what those things (ideas, really) can be shown objectively enough to mean, and once the discussion can be pried far enough away from apologists, and sophists with agendas (whom will invent special circumstance pleadings to paper over difficulties) that anything like objective analysis can be conducted, in the first place.

Philip Schaff, History of the Church, Volume IV, Mediaeval Christianity § 125. The Two Theories of the Lord’s Supper

The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper became the subject of two controversies in the Western church, especially in France. The first took place in the middle of the ninth century between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus, the other in the middle of the eleventh century between Berengar and Lanfranc. In the second, Pope Hildebrand was implicated, as mediator between Berengar and the orthodox party.
In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.
We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma.702 The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar, but had to give way to the prevailing belief in transubstantiation until, in the sixteenth century, the controversy was revived by the Reformers, and resulted in the establishment of three theories: 1) the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, re-asserted by the Council of Trent; 2) the Lutheran theory of the real presence in the elements, retaining their substance;703 and 3) the Reformed (Calvinistic) theory of a spiritual real or dynamic presence for believers. In the Roman church (and herein the Greek church fully agrees with her), the doctrine of transubstantiation is closely connected with the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, which forms the centre of worship.
It is humiliating to reflect that, the commemorative feast of Christ’s dying love, which should be the closest bond of union between believers, innocently gave rise to the most violent controversies. But the same was the case with the still more important doctrine of Christ’s Person. Fortunately, the spiritual benefit of the sacrament does not depend upon any particular human theory of the mode of Christ’s presence, who is ever ready to bless all who love him.

___________________________________________________________________

Footnote 702 The Greek fathers do not, indeed, define the real presence as transubstantiatio or μετουσίωσις, but Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and John of Damascus use similar terms which imply a miraculous change of the elements.

___________________________________________________________________

703 The Lutheran theory, as formulated by the Formula of Concord, is usually and conveniently styled consubstantiation, in distinction from transubstantiation; but Lutheran divines disown the term, because they confine the real presence to the time and act of the sacramental fruition, and hence reject the adoration of the consecrated elements.

___________________________________________________________________

I took liberty to boldhighlight that last portion of Schaff's above comment, since I do much agree with him there, yet myself have taken notice of slight but significant difference between Orthodox description of eucharistic process, which does not share the same identical sacerdotalism which is among chief aspects in regards to the theological claims and descriptions of RCC Mass. But mere mention of that will need suffice, for the time being.

Back to the regularly scheduled program;

§ 126. The Theory of Paschasius Radbertus.

Paschasius Radbertus (from 800 to about 865), a learned, devout and superstitious monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie or Corvey in France704 is the first who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation as then believed by many, and afterwards adopted by the Roman Catholic church. He wrote a book “on the Body and Blood of the Lord,” composed for his disciple Placidus of New Corbie in the year 831, and afterwards reedited it in a more popular form, and dedicated it to the Emperor Charles the Bald, as a Christmas gift (844). He did not employ the term transubstantiation, which came not into use till two centuries later; but he taught the thing, namely, that “the substance of bread and wine is effectually changed (efficaciter interius commutatur) into the flesh and blood of Christ,” so that after the priestly consecration there is “nothing else in the eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ,” although “the figure of bread and wine remain” to the senses of sight, touch, and taste. The change is brought about by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, who created the body of Christ in the womb of the Virgin without cohabitation, and who by the same almighty power creates from day to day, wherever the mass is celebrated, the same body and blood out of the substance of bread and wine. He emphasizes the identity of the eucharistic body with the body which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven; yet on the other hand he represents the sacramental eating and drinking as a spiritual process by faith. He therefore combines the sensuous and spiritual conceptions. He assumes that the soul of the believer communes with Christ, and that his body receives an imperishable principle of life which culminates at last in the resurrection. He thus understood, like several of the ancient fathers, the words of our Saviour: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).
He supports his doctrine by the words of institution in their literal sense, and by the sixth chapter of John. He appealed also to marvellous stories of the visible appearances of the body and blood of Christ for the removal of doubts or the satisfaction of the pious desire of saints. The bread on the altar, he reports, was often seen in the shape of a lamb or a little child, and when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, an angel descended from heaven with a knife, slaughtered the lamb or the child, and let his blood run into a cup!
Such stories were readily believed by the people, and helped to strengthen the doctrine of transubstantiation; as the stories of the appearances of departed souls from purgatory confirmed the belief in purgatory.
The book of Radbert created a great sensation in the West, which was not yet prepared to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation without a vigorous struggle. Radbert himself admits that some of his contemporaries believed only in a spiritual communion of the soul with Christ, and substituted the mere virtue of his body and blood for the real body and blood, i.e., as he thinks, the figure for the verity, the shadow for the substance.
His opponents appealed chiefly to St. Augustin, who made a distinction between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood. In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin, Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.

following extract from

Schaff, History of the Church, Volume IV, Mediaeval Christianity § 128. The Berengar Controversy.

This explains also the conduct of Gregory VII., which is all the more remarkable, as he was in every other respect the most strenuous champion of the Roman church and the papal power. This great pope was more an ecclesiastic than a theologian. He was willing to allow a certain freedom on the mysterious mode of the eucharistic presence and the precise nature of the change in the elements, which at that time had not yet been authoritatively defined as a change of substance. ..."

Substance. Is that a key word within the term transubstantiation, or what? Let us keep a close eye upon that word, and closer still, keep track of how it is was understood and applied, where and by whom.

So where are we at now? Would the above which was borrowed from Schaff, once the information were to be digested and the ensuant ramifications be understood, not indicate that those among the Roman Catholic Church today whom deny that the RCC teaches inclusively of there being literal corporeal presence of Christ in the consecrated host, yet still that the host (wafer) is become Christ's own "flesh and blood" as it were, in yet some other sense, not be in a general sense, agreeing with Berengar? And if so, then agreeing with *some of* at least, the Protestant 'heretics' too?

On the other hand, apparently its desired to incorporate and fully accept (as if it was like unto holy writ) Trentine language & description, that the "real and actual" flesh and blood of Christ be present, much as per Radbert and Lanfranc delineated the argument, and yet further agreement with later arising Scholastic -sourced teachings, such as; that the substance of the bread itself has been annihilated, the "substance" of the bread having been transformed in it's very underlying ~substance~ to not there be "bread" any longer, at all, not one whit, the "accident" of the outwards appearances of the bread and wine; touch, taste, feel and smell having alone been left behind; while a different substance, even Christ's own real and actual flesh and blood having taken their place.

How then could those Catholics, at the same time deny that the RCC teaches that Christ is in flesh and blood body actually present, along with His divinity, and entirety of 'person' of Deity --- which as expressed is said to be the very same exact body.

No hint was supplied in recent past centuries official eucharistic 'teachings' as for that body which is so much spoken of as being again placed on altar, as one would the sacrifices which had been slain, and to be burned up, as for that body which is now with the Father in heaven, gone back to where He was before, and now, seated at the right hand of the Father, for having been transformed into incorruptible. Risen and now Ascended up to heaven, thus heavenly flesh(?), which was indeed flesh enough (not a ghost) when He rose from the grave, then later Ascended into the clouds -- quite literally ---- but instead the wording focuses upon the flesh of Christ as it was when crucified, even there immolated, I suppose as a way of tying it all together. Yet---- we need not immolate Him yet again, but more as in epiclesis -- invite and receive Him as Living God, instead.

In RCC eucharist descriptions as coming from centuries ago scholastics, Christ is said, is being immolated by the priests even yet again, in some way (or else there be no "sacrifice" being "confected" and presided over by a sacerdotal priest) yet not immolated at the same time (hoo-kAY, whatever you say) a "different" immolation as per Aquinas, here.

The absurdity resembles the production of some satirist, who wished to ridicule the mystery, or some visionary, who had labored to bring forth nonsense. A person feels humbled in having to oppose such inconsistency, and scarcely knows whether to weep over the imbecility of his own species, or to vent his bursting indignation against the imposters, who lost to all sense of shame, obtruded this mass of contradictions on man. History, in all its ample folios, displays, in the deceiving and the deceived, no equal instance of assurance of assurance and credulity. [Samuel Edgar, The Variations of Popery1838 p.382]

Could anyone really be expected (anyone who is paying close attention) to not come to the conclusion that this is madness? And that's including Anglican, Presbyterian, possibly Methodists, and even Pentecostal sorts who have their own ways of conceptualizing what "real presence" is, yet most generally on pneumatic (spirit) lines of thought, if they are not strictly memorialist about it in regards to the Lord's Supper. Even those last, some of whom are possible among the most open to pneumatic -- in reading the Word, thus in that way dining upon Him, having him speak to them inwardly to mind and spirit, seeking Him in the smallest crumbs, at times, where His incarnational presence (within themselves and others) may be found?

But the RCC terminology and descriptions? ---Scholastics gone wild, like yankee college sophomores on Spring Break down in Lauderdal...just different.

Where is the sought for coherence for those amid Catholicism who adhere to more spiritualized view, if this second immolation be an unbloody one, yet the actual body & blood still be there, lurking as it were (but to be worshiped in this form!) under the assumed identity of left-behind accidents of the substances (of the bread and wine), those substances having been replaced by the ~very same~ body of Christ which was born in form of man, by way of the virgin, Mary?

I have a possible solution, something to think about, to consider; many of today's Roman Catholics (those whom do not inwardly within themselves subscribe to notions of there being a physical corporeality, inclusive of actual and real human flesh & blood, as we would otherwise, in most any other setting think of that 'substance') have quite possibly, inwardly taken & understood the word 'substance' when applied to eucharistic description, to be in realm of poetical and figurative (but yet "real" in true spiritual sense) all along, yet without noticing within themselves they have done so! While here and there elsewhere among Catholics, there is at the same time those who hold to a much more forcefully harsh & literal understanding of that one word, ~substance~.

beginning at page 392, transcribed by hand from

The Variations of Popery

(earliest publication date 1838, established from this source)

it becomes clear through the extensiveness of Edgar's coverage of history of the doctrine, and his well informed discussion concerning it, that 'transubstantiation' as that came into being among central feature of eucharistic doctrine, thus a central point of theological regard within the RCC, in what Edgar referred to as that doctrine's "modern form", was fairly far from being doctrine of the early Church universal;

Augustine, in particular, was, as has been shewn by Ragusa in the Council of Basil, the distinguished patron of this opinion. Our Lord, says this saint, "seems to command an atrocity. It is, therefore, a figure which is to be understood in a spiritual sense. He is spiritually eaten and drunk. Eat, not with your teeth, but with your heart. Believe, and you have eaten: for to believe and to eat are the same." This in numberless places is, adds Ragusa, "the explanation of Augustine, who, in language clearer than the sun or[at?] noon-day, explains the passage in John's Gospel to denote spiritual reception by faith."
The acceptation of the passage was also adopted by the Cardinal Bonaventure, Alliaco, Cusan, and Catejan. Bonaventure has already been quoted as a saint, and with him agrees Alliaco. The language, says Cusan, "is to be understood, not of visible or sacramental, but of spiritual manduaction by faith". Catejan, on this part of the holy writ, is, if possible, clearer, and stronger than Cusan. The Lord, says he, "speaks of faith." [end page 392]

Included in the chapter which I'm quoting from of this book, Edgar presents claim that even among those present at Council of Trent there was no real agreement as for many of the particulars of eucharistic doctrine, other than for (in one, or many senses) rather vague wording of the descriptions eventually adopted. Edgar provides sketch of details for the moderately wide variety opinions there expressed, and possibly coming from there soon afterwards. Once those are seen for what they are, contemplation as towards the fervently held by some belief, that it was Christ whom instituted RC Mass as it was in the 16th to 19th century, greatly diminishes.

"Presence"? Ok, Jose'. Corporeal presence? No way, get back, Jack and Loretta...

beginning from bottom of page 398, from

The variations of Popery By Samuel Edgar 1838

These statements from Gelasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Facundus have sadly puzzled and perplexed the partisans of transubstantiation. The Testimony of Gelasius silenced Cardinal Cantaren in a disputation at Ratisbon. Cardinal Alan admits Gelasius's and Theodoret's rejection of a substantial change in the sacramental elements; but maintains that these two alone in their age embraced this heresy. Du Pin, having quoted Facundus, refers the reader to others for a resolution of the difficulty. Harduin, Alexander and Arnold, however, have attempted the arduaos task. ¹ The nature or substance, according to the authors, signifies, in this case the species or accidents, which remain unchanged in the sacramental elements. But Theodoret, in the above quotation, distinguishing the substance from the accidents, represents the sacramental elements, as retaining their former substance and species. The substance is here discriminated from the species or accidents; and all these, which he enumerates, remain in the mass without any transmutation.
-->The answer of these authors shews their their skill at transformations. The substance of the sacramental bread, in their hands, becomes, at pleasure, either accidents or the body of our Lord. These theologians could not only, as priests, transubstantiate the substance of the elements into flesh and blood, but also, as authors, when it served their purpose, into accidents or species. A few words from their mouths could convert the substance of the wine into blood, and a few strokes from their pens could metamorphose the same into accidents. These jugglers should have displayed their extraordinary powers, in transforming accidents into substance as well as substance into accidents; and they would then have the perfection of their art.<--
The ancients represent the bread and wine as conveying nourishment to the human body. Such are the statements of Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. The sacramental bread and wine, says Justin, "nourish our flesh and blood by digestion" . According to Irenaeus, "the consecrated elements increase our body." Tertullian represents "our flesh as feeding on his body and blood". Ludovicus lived entirely on the host for forty days; and Catharina subsisted on the same from Ash Wednesday till Ascension. The consecrated elements therefore are food for the body as well as for the soul; and in consequence preserve their substance. None surely will maintain the impiety, if not
[begin page 400]
blasphemy, that the flesh is, by digestion and nutrition formed of the flesh of Emmanuel.
Innocent the third resolved this difficulty by granting that something of the bread and wine remain in the sacrament, to allay hunger and thirst.¹ His infallibility, for once, was right, for which he was afterwards anathematized by the holy council of Trent. This infallibly assembly, in its thirteenth session, heartily cursed all who should say that the bread and wine remain with the Lord's body and blood, or should deny the transformation of the whole bread and wine. This denunciation was a retrospective dash at the vicar-general of God. Whether the imprecation sent his holiness to purgatory or to a worse place, the friends of transubstantiation and the papacy may determine.
-->Aquinas, Godeau, Du Pin, and Challenor endeavor to evade the difficulty by an extraordinary distinction and supposition. ² These distinguish the substance from the species; and with the former, which is not subject to corruption, would feed the soul; and with the latter, which some might think light provision, would sustain the body. The accidents, Aquinas and Godeau make no doubt, may, by an operation of the Almighty, produce the same effects as the substance and nourish the human frame. The angelic doctor confers on the host,"the efficacy of substance without the reality." Du Pin and Challoner entertain a similar idea. The learned divines, it seems, have discovered a method of fattening men on accidents, such as form, quality, taste, smell, colour, sign, and appearances. Signs without signification, shadow without substance, shew without any thing being shewn, colour without any thing coloured, smell without any thing smelled, present, it appears, an exquisite luxury, and form, according to these theological cooks, an excellent sustenance for the human constitution.<--
Challoner, however, doubtful of this theory, and suspicious of unsubstantial food, has, by a happy invention, provided a kind of supernatural meat, if his material diet should happen to be condemned for inefficiency. Some miraculous nourishment of a solid kind, he thinks, may be substituted by Omnipotence, when, by deglutition and digestion, "the sacramental species are changed" and the sacramental substance is removed. Aquinas, Du Pin, and Challoner, in this manner, rather
[end page 400]
than renounce a nonsensical system, condescend to talk balderdash. The credulity and blind zeal of Aquinas, Godeau, and Challoner indeed prepared these superstionists for the reception of any absurdity; the greater the absurdity the more acceptable to their taste, and better calculated for the meridian of their intellect. But more sense might have been expected from Du Pin, who, on other occasions, shews judgement and discrimination.
Many of the fathers, indeed, have been quoted in favour of transubstantiation. Some of these express themselves in strong language. A person unacquainted with the hyperbolical diction of ecclesiastical antiquity, and forms of speech used in these days, might be led to suppose that some of the fathers held a doctrine similar to modern transubstantiation. An opinion of this kind, however, must arise from indiscrimination in the reader, and from exaggeration of the author. The ancients, through want of precision, often confounded the sign with the signification. This confusion led them to exaggeration, and to ascribe to the sign what was true only of the signification; and this communion and exaggeration of antiquity have been augmented by the misrepresentation of the moderns, in their garbled and unfair citations.
Ignatius and Cyril supply a specimen of such confusion and misstatement. Ignatius, who so nobly faced the horrors of marrydom, has been characterized as the friend of transubstantiation. The matyr desired"the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus, and the drink, which is his blood"; and he mentioned some persons, who, in his day, denied the sacrament to be the flesh of the Saviour.
The apparent force of this quotation arises from its want of precision, and its separation from a parallel part of the author's work. Ignatius elsewhere calls "the gospel, and the faith that comes by the gospel, the flesh of Jesus, and love, his blood." ¹ A comparison of these two citations removes every difficulty. Cyril affords another specimen. According to this saint, "the Lord's own body is given under the emblem of the bread and his blood under the emblem of the wine. Consider them, therefore, not as mere bread and wine; for they are the body and blood of Emmanuel."
But the same author ascribes a similar change to the oil, used at that time in baptism. He represents "the oil of baptism after consecration, not as mere oil, but as the grace of Jesus, as the bread is not mere bread, but the body of our Lord." The argument, from these two words, is as conclusive for transubstantiation of the baptismal oil as for the eucharistical bread.
Cyril also represents the manuduction of the Son of Man, mentioned in John, in a spiritual sense which does not imply the eating of human flesh. This communion, he adds, "consists in receiving the emblems of our Lord's body."
Antiquity furnishes no stronger proofs of transubstantiation, than those of Ignatius and Cyril. But these two saints, when allowed to interpret themselves, disclaim the absurdity. The monster had not appeared in their day, All the monuments of Christian antiquity, in like manner, when rightly understood, concur in the rejection of this modern innovation. [ending here transcription, near top of page 402]